In case anyone is interested most pythons used in exotic leather goods come from Indonesia. There the pythons have strong numbers and run around eating rats mostly but really they will eat anything they are big enough to tackle and squeeze. So the pythons are valuable because they eat the rats, the rats eat the crops so they need to keep the rat population in check. Right now since there are so many rats the pythons are just as prolific, mating and breeding with abundance.

Typicaly if a villager sees a python he will kill it and then sell the skin. The villagers have been making some important extra cash off these python skins since there is a recent trend towards this kind of skin. Also the gall bladders are valued for chinese medicine and less so the meat is used but is often discarded.

Most of the python skins are exported to Europe to be used for these fancy leather goods. There is some concern that python skin has become so popular recently that it will create a problem of over harvesting the python.

... is just a leap of illogic in an attempt to give AR credibility by comparing it to a stuggle for equality among humans with various skin pigmentations.

It is the same struggle: to include and accept all forms of life as worthy of respect, not just humans.

Or, conversly, to imply that anybody who doesn't agree with AR is a "bigot" who is locked in the same thought pattern as past slave owners or contemporary skin-pigmentation bigots (commonly called "racists.")

He,he,he. Quite similar, actually.The slave owners were locked into a certain thought pattern that did not allow them to appreciate and accept the slaves until their consciousness and understanding expanded to include them and see them as equally worthy. Nothing changed. Only their perception.

Like the people who are locked into their thought patterns and cannot accept sentient beings as worthy of the consideration given to humans, until their conscoiusness expands enough to include them.

The "differences" and status of quality or worth assigned according skin pigmentation at various points in checkered human history are false, unjust social constructs. Therefore, thinking according to those constructs and favoring one's own skin pigmentation over another, or all others, is false, illogical and unjust. That is why it is, rightfully, called "bigotry."

Same about thinking about constructs favoring humans over other sentient beings.

The differences between species are real. The favoring of one's "kind" (in terms of species) is therefore logical and just. Not to mention, universal among all creatures.

Favoring one kind over others is what the slave owners were doing. They thought it was logical and just. Until their understanding expanded. What is universal is the fact that all species are living and have their place in the scheme of things

Animals have no concepts of "rights." Wolves don't care a crap about the "rights" of coyotes. They will simply kill coyotes on sight. Likewise, coyotes don't care a crap about the "rights" of deer or wolves. If they find a lone sick or elderly wolf that has been ejected from its pack, they will kill it without mercy. Deer don't care a crap about either wolves or coyotes. And so on and on.

But we are humans and do give a crap (Some do)

If we wish to engage in absurd projection, we can observe and note with complete certainty that wolves are unrepentant wolf supremists, deer are blatant deer supremists, coyotes are stark and shameless coyote supremists.. and so on.

"Rights" are a human concept, shared among humans. Equality and justice among and between diverse groups are, likewise, unique to humans.

Some of us have been saying that all through these posts. It was labelled "mental masturbation" and "toucy feely".

As the sole sapient beings on Earth, humans have a moral/ethical obligation to approach the environment and other living things with wisdom and a long-term vision. Not to mention, a greater consideration of kindness and mercy toward animals than animals display toward one another.

Therefore, again, it might be perfectly ecologically sound and ethical to eliminate, or at least severly limit, an invasive, destructive, non-native species such as the feral Florida pythons. Where wisdom and compassion might come in is capturing the snakes alive when possible, or killing them quickly and mercifully -- and perhaps putting the carcass parts to good use -- such as in jackets or boots.

That will depend on the view and understanding of those who ascribe themselves the right to do that. That fact that we created a problem doesn't mean that whatever we do to correct it is ethical. It may be more of the same thing that created it.

As to Kardashian's reasons for buying and wearing snake skin boots (which yes, I realize probably came from a source less ethcial than the quick and merciful slaying of a feral Florida python), I can't say. I can't read minds well enough to guess the motives of a person I've never met.

The only people posting here who truly comprehend what I have been trying to say are Rabello and arielg. And they usually express my thought better than I could anyway.

Suffice it to say that I understand that you have no use for animal rights advocates, and you do not agree with Peter Singer's definition of speciesism.

Here is that definition:

Speciesism is giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species, over identical interests of members of a different species, solely because it is a member of your species. It can be compared to racism and sexism.

What it comes down to is that I, personally, believe absolutely that it is morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property. And that means that I think it is wrong to kill snakes for their skins. If a snake was attacking you, and you genuinely feared for your life, you would have the right to protect yourself. And if that meant killing the snake, so be it.

But killing something just to make money, or because you enjoy killing, or for the animal's flesh which you don't need to eat - well, that is just wrong.

The pythons expanded because they where introduced into an area with no natural predators and plenty of food. Once they eat most of the rats, raccoons and whatever, their numbers will decrease to what the area can sustain. No species can survive unless they have a food supply.

Of course, they will still have lots of pets and maybe some kids in the populated areas, but the environment will find a balance.

Every living thing on Earth consumes other living things. Life requires food and other species and life forms are food. Humans consume animals, fish, vegetation, fungi and minerals. We find other uses for no-food portions.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon

Every living thing on Earth consumes other living things. Life requires food and other species and life forms are food. Humans consume animals, fish, vegetation, fungi and minerals. We find other uses for no-food portions.